Re: minor improvement in snapbuild: use existing interface and removefake code

Hi ChangAo, Thanks for your comments. At 2025-11-18 10:47:20, "cca5507" wrote: > Is there a test case can reproduce the assert fail in > SnapBuildGetOrBuildSnapshot()? > After exploring the logicalmsg_decode()，I think the Assert in SnapBuildGetOrBuildSnapshot() will not fail. But the asse

Re: minor improvement in snapbuild: use existing interface and remove fake code

Hi yuefei, Thanks for your review. At 2025-11-18 09:13:12, "Yuefei Shi" wrote: > - /* only build a new snapshot if we don't have a prebuilt one */ > - if (builder->snapshot == NULL) > - { > - builder->snapshot = SnapBuildBuildSnapshot(builder); > - /* increase refcount for the snapshot builder

minor improvement in snapbuild: use existing interface and remove fake code

Hi hackers, While reviewing the snapbuild implementation, I noticed several small changes that could improve code clarity, correctness, and reuse. I have prepared a patch with these modifications (attached): 1. Removed the Assert in SnapBuildGetOrBuildSnapshot(). When called from logicalmsg_de

Re: [PATCH] Add a guc parameter to control limit clause adjust path cost.

There were some formatting display issues with my previous email reply, so I’m using another email account to send this message. "Tom Lane" Sun, 02 Nov 2025 12:44:13 -0500 write: > I think this is a pretty bad solution as given. A global GUC switch > is an extremely blunt instrument and hard